JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 17, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I've been writing for several months about the curious sense of disappointment afflicting liberals
—the belief that they've been let down by a president who is, in fact, racking up historical achievements. Part of the reason for liberal dismay in an ahistorical understanding of how progress works. In the liberal memory, political success is bathed in golden-hued triumph. In reality, it is a grubby, stop-and-start process that looks pretty ugly up close. That's the heart of the argument Michael Tomasky makes in his essay in Democracy, "Against Despair":
The New Deal was not a seamless narrative of aggressively liberal steps in which conservatives were sent scampering. It was full of starts and stops, and it took a long time. There were many reasons for this, but a chief one had to do with Roosevelt himself–seen by the more impatient reformers of his day as equivocal and adhering to too few core beliefs, exactly the way some see Obama today. Alan Brinkley, in Liberalism and Its Discontents, reminds us that the general historians’ view of Roosevelt, quite far removed from that presented in the sound bites and summaries employed today, was that of "a man without an ideological core and thus unable to exercise genuine leadership." Huey Long, who sat out on FDR’s left flank, complained of this in a quote in which he invoked his ideological nemesis, the Senate majority leader from Arkansas: "When I talk to [Roosevelt], he says, ‘Fine! Fine! Fine!’ But Joe Robinson goes to see him the next day and he says ‘Fine! Fine! Fine!’ Maybe he says ‘Fine’ to everybody."
To read through any number of thorough histories of the New Deal is to be struck not by the differences between Roosevelt (man of action) and Obama (pensive equivocator) but by the many consistencies in how politics actually unfolds in real time–the difficulties inherent in trying to effect change, the readiness to accept half a loaf, and the regular reassurances sent to the moneyed classes that the liberals hadn’t taken over the candy store. It’s worth noting, for example, that the second act to become law under the New Deal, after the Emergency Banking Act, which was a progressive piece of legislation, was a conservative bill, the Economy Act. It cut salaries of government employees and benefits to veterans, the latter by 15 percent. Arthur Schlesinger, in The Coming of the New Deal, writes that literally an hour after signing the banking act, Roosevelt outlined this bill to congressional leaders, saying the next day and sounding more than a little like some Robert Rubin progenitor had been whispering in his ear: "For three long years, the federal government has been on the road toward bankruptcy." (And maybe one had: Schlesinger notes that Roosevelt’s budget director, Lewis Douglas, was certainly no Keynesian.) Just imagine Obama having tried something like that, alienating both veterans and AFSCME within a week of taking office. The Economy Act was opposed by many liberals in the House, so FDR turned to conservative Democrats and Republicans, who passed it.
A second reason for liberal despair is the cult of the presidency. Few people follow the arcana of Congressional debate. They attribute all political outcomes to the president, and thus when the outcome is unsatisfactory, the reason must be a failure of presidential willpower. I wrote about this phenomenon, with relation to the BP spill, in a recent TRB column.
Rachel Maddow offered a perfect example of the phenomenon the other night. She delivered her fantasy version of the speech President Obama should have given. It was filled with unequivocal liberal rhetoric. I was struck by this portion, explaining how she would pass an energy bill:
The United States Senate will pass an energy bill. This year. The Senate version of the bill will not expand offshore drilling. The earlier targets in that bill for energy efficiency and for renewable energy-sources will be doubled or tripled.
If Senators use the filibuster to stop the bill, we will pass it by reconciliation, which still ensures a majority vote. If there are elements of the bill that cannot procedurally be passed by reconciliation, if those elements can be instituted by executive order, I will institute them by executive order.
In reality, you can't pass any of the climate bill by reconciliation. Democrats didn't write reconciliation instructions permitting them to do so, and very little of its could be passed through reconciliation, which only allows budgetary decisions. Maddow's response is to pass the rest by executive order. But you can't change those laws through executive order, either. That's not how our system of government works, nor is it how our system should work.
If Maddow's speech had to hew to the reality of Senate rules and the Constitution, she'd be left where Obama is: ineffectually pleading to get whatever she can get out of a Senate that has nowhere near enough votes to pass even a stripped-down cap and trade bill. It may be nice to imagine that all political difficulties could be swept away by a president who just spoke with enough force and determination. It's a recurrent liberal fantasy
—Michael Moore imagined such a speech a few months ago, Michael Douglas delivers such a speech in "The American President." I would love to eliminate the filibuster and create more accountable parties. But even if that happens, there will be a legislative branch that has a strong say in what passes or doesn't pass. And that's good! We wouldn't want to live in a world where a president can remake vast swaths of policy merely be decreeing it.
31 comments
I have no problem with this analysis of the realities of legislative governance. Nor am I disappointed with Obama for taking the best the process will give him at any moment. My criticism is that he has fallen into the Democratic trap -- too much the policy wonk, sitting in the White House making the policy widgets, too little politics. The widgets are for appointees. Obama has to be the voice of his administration, Politician-in-Chief, constantly working public opinion to create the support that will allow him to act. FDR lived in a very different media environment, but he was a master of the media of his day. Obama has to seize and hold the political initiative all the time, forcing his political enemies to respond to him. Else they will gnaw him to death as they are doing. He let the health care reform hang around way too long with the Republicans framing the debate. The result was a huge loss of political capital that need not have occurred. He is very talented, but too timid.
- roidubouloi
June 17, 2010 at 8:57am
See also Ross Douthat's NY Times blog today. Bipartisan consensus! Chait and Douthat hold hands! (And they happen to be largely right.)
- timteeter
June 17, 2010 at 9:05am
What roid said. In spades. A bit more bite from the president, even some bark, would be helpful. He needs to show the GOP they can't steamroll him, which they seem to be able to do easily. Last year's HCR "debate" is a case in point. Or financial regulation. There just doesn't seem to be much sense of urgency in this administration for anything. Again, HCR is an example.
- tnmats
June 17, 2010 at 9:39am
- Don't worry. We'll be saved by the right. They have their act in order, they're short on despair and have solutions that are more concise than Rachel's or either Michael's (not me). Of course they aren't in charge of anything, yet. And they don't seem to have a plan or a person to oust Obama. Nor do they address issues that will expand their shrinking national demographics and are proud to march to the beat of FOXNEWS, Rush and Beck. But you are correct. The greatest advantage the GOP has is the affliction which has struck the left. Disappointment. Regret, distress and despondency are right up their with starvation and lack of ammunition because numbers only count if your people are engaged. So it would be strange indeed if progressives sulk to defeat, even though they have the numbers to win. Well, not that strange...the other affliction of the left is the satisfaction that being correct is more important than winning. So stay home and pout, that will show 'em who's in charge!
- michaelg
June 17, 2010 at 9:46am
I'm sympathetic to roid and tnmats's frustration. But did Obama really let the GOP "steamroll him" on HCR? Obama got the bill he wanted passed into law; Republicans got nothing. Yes, Republicans made political hay for a season, but the point of governing is not stirring up the angriest suburban mobs. The point is making public policy align with your objectives, which Obama did. We're kind of like the Tigers fans who only care that our pitcher missed the perfecto while forgetting that we still beat the Indians in a shutout. A win's a win, and the only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner. It bugs me when I notice Sore Winner Syndrome in my own reactions to the Obama presidency; I really don't want to be that guy.
- rhubarbs
June 17, 2010 at 9:53am
Once again, I do not understand why liberals are filled with "regret, distress and despondency." Why have the actions of the rightists in this country not filled them with rage? In politics, nothing is given to you; you have to fight every step of the way. If we want this administration and this Congress to do what we want, we have to push even harder from the left than the Tea Partiers are pushing from the right. Despair because we have not had instant gratification is not an option.
- zardoz67
June 17, 2010 at 10:12am
- "A win's a win, and the only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner." - rhubarbs At least the role of fans in sports is limited. The Tigers will be just fine as long as the sore winners stay off the field. It may be crazy but politics allows the spectators to determine the winner. (Note that George Will loves the perpetually sold out Cubs) But I'm probably less sympathetic than roid because the opportunity to succeed is rare and if one ignores it while it is happening they don't appreciate winning. I can't forgive a player who doesn't want to win. As a player, coach & spectator Obama knows what's at stake...and we only give him one vote. Weird sport, eh?
- michaelg
June 17, 2010 at 10:27am
I think that Obama is operating in a media environment that is almost fatal to any Democrat. The "pox on both your houses" is as far as most of the mainstream media will go. Therefore he has to bend over backwards to seem like he is listening to people who will NEVER move one inch closer to him. Heck, many of the media are even too scared to call out candidates that are making violent threats against Democrats.
- MikeB.
June 17, 2010 at 11:05am
How about calling the fantasy of presidential omnipotence the Greenwald fallacy? This is a superb post, Jonathan. Political history - like current politics - is rich and detailed and more like a Jackson Pollock painting than not, but the complexities and anfractuosities of this history frequently get flattened out. I love how you take down the little child Maddow. You are dead on in your comments, barb.
- liberal reformer
June 17, 2010 at 11:11am
Barb's comments are not remotely dead on. "Obama got the bill he wanted passed into law; Republicans got nothing." Bullshit. Republicans got the following: 1) A senate seat in Massachussets 2) "a huge loss of (Obama) political capital that need not have occurred" 3) An important decrease in the popularity of Democrats on the generic ballot (yes, I know the economy and other factors are important here. So was healthcare) 4) Nine months (!) of the legislative calendar eaten up. As for "making public policy align with your objectives," the 2009-10 legislative session may well have been a once-in-a-generation moment for passing desperately needed left-of-center policy. And all we got was Wall Street regulation and a Nixonian health care reform, which is a good and important thing, but which left many other important priorities without the political capital and time on the legislative calendar to pass. So to indicate that Obama's less-than-impressive strategy and communication during the HCR debate is unimportant seems rather silly.
- Curran1
June 17, 2010 at 1:10pm
Curran, I cannot tell you on how many levels I disagree with your post. Self-preservation is not the point of being an elected official. You get into politics because you want to perfect the union, and believe your ideas will perfect the union. Your goal as an elected official is to convert those aspirations into practical realities. 45,000 Americans die every year due to inadequate health insurance. Thousands more file for bankruptcy every year because of medical expenses. Exactly how many lives must be saved and medical bankruptcies must be averted for you to deem health care reform worth its political cost?
- jimbomoron
June 17, 2010 at 2:04pm
Oh, and Curran, Republicans, in losing health care reform, got their worst policy defeat in decades. They know that it would be political suicide for them to do the following: 1. Revoke health care coverage of 31 million Americans 2. Allow insurers to pick and choose who and what they want to cover 3. Reinstate standard, substandard, preferred, gender, etc. insurance ratings. 4. Take away maternity care and other services from millions of Americans 5. Revoke other minimum standards of coverage (i.e., minimum actuarial value, out-of-pocket caps, annual and lifetime limits on coverage, etc.) for an insurance policy to be sold 6. Revoke millions of dollars of financial assistance to middle and lower-income Americans to purchase health insurance
- jimbomoron
June 17, 2010 at 2:17pm
Chait's points and those of most commentors like barb's and moron's make the case that tnr is no longer a Progressive voice, but rather largely a Blue Dog rag by and for Blue Dogs. "I'm sympathetic to roid and tnmats's frustration. But did Obama really let the GOP "steamroll him" on HCR? Obama got the bill he wanted passed into law; Republicans got nothing." Get it into your heads, guts and toes: Obama ain't no Progressive in action, and only occasionally so in rhetoric. Blue Dog politics aint gonna restore our economy or win a political majority. Better than Bush or Palin won't cut it in the long run.
- drofnats1
June 17, 2010 at 4:03pm
- "...to indicate that Obama's less-than-impressive strategy and communication during the HCR debate is unimportant seems rather silly." - Curran No, you're cherry picking facts and that is always silly. You're proposing a counterfactual, that a different strategy and communication could have proposed a better result than passing the legislation. You could also include the wisdom of W.C. Fields in your alternate universe, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it.". You can't pretend you can alter some of the facts and guarantee you would not alter the outcome: Quitting and losing was always considered an option, which you chose not to address.
- michaelg
June 17, 2010 at 4:05pm
At first I thought Drofnats was way off base, but I think I get it now. Drof recognizes that a more progressive health care bill would not have got the votes of the Blue Dogs and moderates. But, Obama could have insisted on a stronger bill that he knew had no chance of passing. Then, when it was defeated by the Blue Dogs, moderates and Repubs, Obama could have said "See - we can't get decent legislation with these guys in here. Give me real liberals, or we're going to make sure that nothing passes for the rest of my term!" This fires up the progressive base and they rush to the polls. In 2010, Obama gets the majorities FDR and LBJ had, and liberal nirvana arrives shortly thereafter. Don't pinch me.
- Geoff G
June 17, 2010 at 4:14pm
Even better, Geoff, if Obama had actually pushed for true socialism like the right has been screaming. Then many of the most conservative states would have seceded from the union, leaving the rump Congress with a progressive supermajority. Then, like Lincoln after Confederate secession, Obama could have passed all the progressive legislation he wanted (again, like Lincoln and the Homestead Act, the Land Grant Act, the National Currency Act, the Revenue Act, the transcontinental railroad, etc.). That's what real presidential leadership looks like, not this mamby-pamby "systematically deliver on your campaign promises" crap that Obama has been doing.
- rhubarbs
June 17, 2010 at 5:02pm
E.J. Dionne's column from today is worth reading to give a better take than what was posted here.
- tnmats
June 17, 2010 at 5:35pm
Jimbo-m, I actually agree with most of what you said, mainly the idea that the Affordable Care Act was necessary policy and an objective victory. Hooray! I'm not proposing a counterfactual in which HCR was not pursued. The context of my post was response to Rhubarbs' assertion that because we got a policy victory, the large political price paid either didn't exist, or didn't matter. My point: if some of the political cost had been avoided, more policy victories might have been achieved. In other words, had Obama taken care of the politics/messaging more carefully, there might have been a lower political cost, which would have allowed other important policy a better chance of success afterward. In other words, contra Rhubarbs, the political costs of Health Care are both real and important, because they bear a direct relationship to what policy is achieved, then and afterwards. So, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Obama should not have pursued healthcare. MichaelG: I'm not sure I entirely see your point about "cherry-picking facts." Again, please note the context of the comment: I was pointing out, contra what another poster seemed to say, that negatives related to the situation do, in fact, exist, and ought to be taken into account when assessing the aftermath. Certainly those facts are not, on their own, representative of the entire result (which was positive), but no one was claiming that. As for the rest, I'm not interested in what would have happened if Health Care was dropped--no one here is advocating that. But I do have the temerity to suggest that if something had been done differently--a more engaged communications strategy that seeks to engage with voters and avoid allowing the right to define the terms of the debate--a better result might have occurred. I'm not out to relegislate health care, but I think it's an important point moving forward, as Obama continues to take on damage from the right without an effective response, and to seem unnervingly reactive in his communications and politicking.
- Curran1
June 17, 2010 at 7:06pm
Merely because you say that barb is not dead on doesn't mean that he is not, Curran. He is far more right than you are. You live on planet Platonism. Democratic presidents since Harry Truman, sixty long years ago, have been striving from universal health care. No, Obama didn't get all he wanted. They never do. But 31 million uninsured Americans will be insured because of the health care bill. I assume you have health insurance, else you would realize the magnitude of this triumph alone. And it was nine months well worth it. It is fortunate that health care reform passed at all, given the incredible level of Republican intransigence. Instead of wasting your time commenting, you would do far better going back to the writings of Jonathan Chait and Jonathan Cohn on health care reform from earlier this year and from last year and reading it carefully and (perhaps) learning something.
- liberal reformer
June 17, 2010 at 10:22pm
I think HCR, with all its flaws, was a great achievement. The point I was trying to make is that the costs of this accomplishment -- many of which are outlined by Curran -- are costs that I don't think the Democrats had to pay. I think the reason they did was Obama's delusion that the Republicans could be conciliated (impossible) and his reluctance to command the political debate. In a democracy, it you have public opinion behind you, you can do what you want. If you don't, you aren't going to get very far. The number one job of the president is to get public opinion behind his agenda and minimize the opportunities for his political opponents to move public opinion in the other direction. Policy is for wonks; managing Congress is for your congressional leaders (and they have been doing an excellent job). As president, you want to push to the boundaries of what the public will support and work constantly to expand those boundaries. No one else can fill this role. Either the president gains the public's trust, or he doesn't. I'm not even saying that I would not have paid the heavy price for HCR if there were no alternative. But I just don't think it had to be paid. Unprovable? Of course. But that's my opinion of Obama's performance thus far as Politician-in-Chief.
- roidubouloi
June 18, 2010 at 12:44am
" But did Obama really let the GOP "steamroll him" on HCR?" Yes. You guys are cheering Palin-care. If Palin won and gave you the current health care law, you'd be pissing all over it. But because you were led to believe that "you won", you think it's a good start, oblivious to the fact that much of it will subsequently be undone. The math behind it has already fallen apart. It's nothing but an unfunded benefit that will not make it a decade. And it doesn't start for a few more years.... "I'm not even saying that I would not have paid the heavy price for HCR if there were no alternative. " Obama screwed up HCR by letting the message get diluted. Strike while the iron's hot. But instead, as we've seen over and over with this man, he thinks and thinks and thinks, and the world just passes him by. As the reform wore on, daily analysis tarnished the few shining bits of the bill. Young engineers often think they can do a better job if they wait for more information before acting. But they fail to recognize that an 8 year old kid can make the right decision if given all the needed information with proper caveats. Leaders are those that overwhelmingly make a good enough call with just 30% of the information they need. Obama is sorely lacking in that area. Many like to characterize it as him being thoughtful...that's being charitable. There's a reason those in the gulf coast believe Bush handled Katrina better than Obama handled this. Sad but true.
- seattleeng
June 18, 2010 at 3:25am
You too could benefit from reading Chait and Cohn, seattle. We haven't been "led" to believe that the health care bill was a triumph, we know that it is based on the evidence. It is more like you have been led to denigrate it by the idiotic liberal blogosphere and TV. The bill that passed was "Palincare?" OMG. "Analysis" like that is a major reason why Jonathan Chait (and Cohn) is employed by the New Republic and why you are dicking around out here, retailing your inanities. Whenever did Sarah Palin propose the big government measure of covering 31 million uninsured Americans? Never, that's when. The Republicans didn't even put up a serious plan to reform the health care system. Unintentionally hilarious sentiments like yours make for entertaining reading at TNR Online. Keep up the good work.
- liberal reformer
June 18, 2010 at 5:14am
Obama screwed up by imagining that conservatives and Republicans were anything other than implacable enemies and actually trying to make bi-partisans cooperation and compromise a reality. Complete waste of time and political resources.
- roidubouloi
June 18, 2010 at 10:04am
Liberal reformer, keep telling yourself it was what you wanted. Obama promised a government program to keep the insurance companies at bay, along with no mandate, and "not a dime" of tax increases to those making under $200K, and big cost controls to "bend the curve". And no increase to the debt. Instead, we have a huge tax increases coming on the middle class to pay for this, no government provider, bigger insurance companies, and a mandate. No cost controls, either. Everyone is know acknowledging that costs will continue to rise, and virtually the same rate. And yes, this hits the debt hard. You wanted single payer. DENIED! Are you telling me if McCain/Palin delivered this plan you'd be supporting it? That's a laugh. Yes, if McCain/Palin delivered this I'd have been happy, mandate included. But it really needed more emphasis on cost controls. As I've been telling Roid for a year now, the middle class needs to carry more of the tax burden if we are going to give EU-esque benefits. That's why I'm happy with this. The EU whacks middle- and lower-income earners hard for social benefits.
- seattleeng
June 18, 2010 at 11:53am
I never wrote that I wanted the public option because it was not a priority with me, so there goes one of your talking points. I am for whatever works. The Netherlands has a system of private health insurance plans and a universal mandate, which works quite well.
- liberal reformer
June 18, 2010 at 12:09pm
Good, adult post by Chait. My apologies to roidubouloi but I agree with nearly all his comments. (I have been doing a lot of that lately. I'm not sure what's wrong.) Obama needs to take what Chait is saying and make it perceptual flesh, meat and bones.
- basman
June 18, 2010 at 1:17pm
As I have been telling seattleeng all year, the wealthy need to carry more of the tax burden. Their share of the tax burden has been declining even as their share of pre-tax income has been increasing. This is a big part of the reason the middle class is feeling screwed -- it is being screwed. So, of course, what conservatives want is to screw them harder.
- roidubouloi
June 18, 2010 at 3:14pm
A perfect example of the screwing is the difficulty in trying to remove one of the most egregious loopholes in the tax system -- allowing hedge fund managers to treat their income from their management services as if it were a capital gain, because it is to the people who pay them for their services. This is like allowing someone who earns a capital gain to pass along capital gains treatment to the people paid with the money. I am ashamed of the Democrats who are in the way of removing this outrageous favorite treatment.
- roidubouloi
June 18, 2010 at 3:17pm
Geoff, Rhubarbs. Your "Blue Dog Obama has got it right" strategy has proven a sure-fire winner. Weak stimulus package--- best of all possible worlds. Inadequate health care reform, minimal insurance reform that dumbass JQ Public doesn't appreciate?? HEY-- lets have more of the same. Unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at $300B/year?? NO PROBLEMA. No increase in taxes on the upper 1%?? Right on. They provide jobs with that money. The average voter just doesn't understand like you do all he has gained under the Dems in the last 18 months.
- drofnats1
June 18, 2010 at 4:03pm
LibRef (and others): I don't understand why people, when responding to me, keep knocking down a straw-man, and dinging me for things I neither believe nor implied. I don't discount the magnitude of the achievement that was health-care, nor did I (ever) believe it should not be pursued. I was furious during the weeks after Brown's election when it seemed like healthcare -might- be dropped, and greatly relieved when Pelosi and Obama decided to pursue an end-game, at whatever further political cost was necessary. I've also read (I believe) every word Chait and Cohn have written on the subject in this magazine for the last two or three years. It's certainly true, LibRef, that, as you say, saying Rhubarbs is wrong doesn't make it so. That's why, if you'll go back and read my original post, you'll see I was presenting evidence that his point that 'Republicans got nothing' out of the health care debate was not accurate when various political damage was taken into account; these things are indirectly very important because they've made it more difficult to advance other big-ticket policy. That's not nothing. I just believe (as Roid stated much more cogently in his post of 12:44) that some of these political costs were avoidable, and that a more assertive, less reactive communications strategy, would be preventing some of the political damage Obama is suffering, while preserving more of the administration's leverage to pursue good policy. But I seem to be repeating myself at this point, so I'll quit here.
- Curran1
June 18, 2010 at 6:01pm
"that 'Republicans got nothing' out of the health care debate was not accurate when various political damage was taken into account; these things are indirectly very important because they've made it more difficult to advance other big-ticket policy. That's not nothing." And my cost the Dems one or both houses of Congress. That's not nothing either. If you want to enact policy, you have to have a majority. I understood you the first time, curran. And, of course, I agree. I thought your list of the costs spot on.
- roidubouloi
June 18, 2010 at 8:55pm